The murders at Fort Hood have resulted in renewed calls to lift Bill Clinton’s ban on personally owned firearms on military bases. This latest attack was the third on a military installation in the past five years, so common sense (no, common DECENCY) dictates that a change in policy is necessary. Those who essentially hate the military and think the worst of its members have had their way long enough. Their “because we say so” policy has never made sense. It has to end because it’s killing people and destroying lives.

The arguments against allowing our military personnel the means to defend themselves and their families are at best pitiful and at worst infuriating.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno is more concerned with sucking up to the liberals who sign his paychecks than protecting the men and women who serve under him, so he refuses to consider changes in the regulation. Odierno recently said “Although we carry arms quite regularly overseas when we we’re deployed on a regular basis, I believe back here in the United States, it’s more appropriate that we leave it to that.” In this case, “leaving it to that” means continuing to allow our soldiers and their families to be in danger because he said so.

Looking to change the subject from Obamacare, a Democrat Congressman, whose district includes Fort Drum New York, has decided to move his mouth without saying anything on the matter. He’ll “consider” supporting a change, but ONLY if the military recommends it – oh, what courage!

Not surprisingly two Texas Republicans, Rep. Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Stockman, are backing the change.

What is not surprising is who opposes the change. The once conservative, now “whatever I need to say” New York Congressman Peter King manages to be both disgusting and infuriating in just a few words on the subject. King dismissed the idea, saying, “…you have a situation where in a barracks on Saturday night (read when soldiers are drunk or high on drugs), you may have arguments, fights… [and people will get shot].” In other words King is saying, “Those drunken lunatics will get in fights and kill each other.”

There is no large military presence in King’s district, but there are plenty of liberals who must love what he said.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

The November 5, 2009, shooting rampage by the cowardly Muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was wake-up call that has become an example of why America made a grave error in electing Barack Hussein Obama.

Hasan murdered 13 innocent people. All but one were soldiers either just returning from theaters of war or preparing to deploy to combat areas. One of the dead soldiers was pregnant. The remaining victim was an Army civilian employee.

Hassan’s guilt is indisputable. After being shot by an armed civilian guard the only armed personnel at the scene (thanks to Bill Clinton Military bases are “gun free zones”), Hassan was immediately taken into custody. His weapons were recovered. Eyewitness statements were taken, and then the unexpected happened. Nothing further has taken place.

The White House immediately set up whatever roadblocks it could to thwart the Army’s case against Hassan….

As more sober minds consider ways to keep the Middle East from falling into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, Barack Obama is “fighting terrorism” by reaching out to the leader of one of the Brotherhood’s American creations. In the process, a White House official revealed that radical Muslims frequently advise the White House office headed by the president’s top adviser and alter ego, Valerie Jarrett.

Preemptive Groveling

Flush with instances of American Muslims supporting Islamic jihad, Rep. Peter King is set to launch his investigation into the radicalization of U.S. mosques, imams, and the faithful they serve later this week. Barack Obama, ever keen to reach out to the Muslim community, decided to get ahead of this by sending a deputy to plead with the extremists for cooperation. On Sunday, Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough spoke to a Sterling, Virginia, mosque some believe is a model of moderate Islam: the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), led by imam Mohamed Magid. Indeed, McDonough began by thanking Magid by name.

Although the Sudanese-born imam presents himself as an ecumenical, anti-terrorism leader active in “interfaith” outreach, his current associations — and those of others at his mosque — present a different picture.

A Dangerous Mosque

This author exposed ADAMS’s radical connections nearly seven years. At the time, ADAMS’s chairman was Ahmad Totonji, an Iraqi-born citizen of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia who was named as a defendant in a $1 trillion lawsuit filed by more than 600 relatives of people who died in the 9/11 attacks. He served as Vice President of the Safa Group and the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), which officials have linked to al-Qaeda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Sami al-Arian. (Al-Arian served more than five years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to aid terrorism, and he is currently under house arrest awaiting his contempt trial, which has been mysteriously stalled.) ADAMS’s legal counsel, Muhammed Ashraf, was the attorney for Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is now serving 23 years in prison for laundering money for Muammar Qaddafi in a plot to kill a Saudi prince.

Magid was on the premises of ADAMS’s Herndon, Virginia, offices when federal agents stormed the facility in March 2002. The “Grove Street Addresses” provided the homes of more than 100 interlocking Muslim organizations that the government accused of providing material support for terrorism. After the raid, Magid assembled a “community building” meeting at ADAMS attended by a variety of extremists.

“Peace begins with courageous leaders who are willing to identify and define our enemy, and their objectives, because political correctness has no place in our national security strategy.” — Lt. Col. Allen West (Ret.), R-FL, at CPAC 2011.

The great escape artist, Harry Houdini, was once invited to the British Isles to see if a newly built prison was escape-proof. Once inside his cell, Houdini carefully listened to the metal-to-metal clanking sounds of a prison guard inserting and then withdrawing a key from his cell’s lock. After the jailer left, Houdini pulled out his tools and confidently began working the lock; attempting to defeat it. As time passed, Houdini’s confidence waned to the point that the once unflappable escape artist eventually acknowledged defeat. Exhausted, Houdini leaned against the door which gave way under his weight to discover the only place the cell door was locked was within his own mind.

And so it is with those Democrats who have attempted to shackle Americans in the prison cell of political correctness, somehow believing that this imprisonment will keep us safer and change the minds of those who seek to destroy us, the unbelieving infidels. If you would just believe the gospel according to Barry, and stay within the invisible walls the Democrats have worked so hard to erect, our enemies will somehow hold peace rallies all across the greater Muslim world in support of the chosen one. In reality, they have locked us all inside the impenetrable cell of their own imaginations.

Consider the early days of the Obama administration, when political correctness seemed to rear its ugly head around every corner. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano launched an FBI watch list citing military veterans and anti-immigration and pro-life Americans as “rightwing extremists” and potential national security threats. This was about the same time when the word “terrorism” was replaced by “man-caused disasters” in the name of political correctness.

The Obama administration said Tuesday it would provide more information to Congress about the Fort Hood shootings but continued to defy a subpoena request for witness statements and other documents.

After days of negotiations, the Pentagon and Justice Department informed a Senate committee that they would not comply with congressional subpoenas to share investigative records from the Nov. 5 shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., which killed 13 people. The agencies said that divulging the material could jeopardize their prosecution of Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the accused gunman.

The Pentagon did budge in other areas, however, saying it had agreed to give the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs access to Hasan’s personnel file, as well as part of an Army report that scrutinized why superiors failed to intervene in Hasan’s career as an Army psychiatrist, despite signs of his religious radicalization and shortcomings as a soldier.

Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the Senate committee, called the refusal by the Pentagon and the Justice Department to hand over all the requested material "an affront to Congress’s constitutional obligation to conduct independent oversight of the executive branch."